Fox News - Is it news with opinion or just news?

Aaron62

Contributor
Staff member
#1
This is somewhat of a political post, but rather than argue amongst ourselves on what side of the political spectrum and which side is right.....I just want to see what your thoughts are on the programming offered on Fox News the cable network.

I watch Fox News quite often, but there are times where I feel like it's just a bit too swayed in opinion on certain pieces. News is sometimes delivered with sarcasm or even opinion interjected instead of letting the viewer decide on how to interpret. It seems to have gotten worse over the years, and lately I've found myself switching over to other networks.
 

dkreichen1968

Moderator
Staff member
#2
Can't we say the same thing for CNN or the network news broadcasts. The thing that drives Fox is that it's right leaning versus left leaning like about every other channel or network. The "fair and balanced" tag line shouldn't be there. They should simply say: "We're right, they're left and wrong." ;)
 

nbound-au

The Graveyard Shift
#3
From an international perspective, Fox is very right wing. Most other US stations also lean to the right, but to a lesser extent. Of course it is intentionally right wing, as that is where their audience lies on the spectrum, and most people only want to hear news that backs up their pre-conceived notions of things.

-----

As a funny side note, Rupert Murdoch, Australian-American, and owner of Fox (via News Corporation), recently tweeted this after the recent school shooting in Connecticut:
‘‘Terrible news today. When will politicians find courage to ban automatic weapons? As in Oz after similar tragedy’’
Note: Link added by me, not part of original quote.


One of our Liberal Party (which is our centre-right conservative party! - yep confusing hehe - they are economic liberals [more like republicans] - hence the name) party members retweeted this right back:
‘‘@rupertmurdoch I suspect they will find the courage when Fox News enthusiastically campaigns for it.’’
-----

Fox News is pretty much universally understood here to have a very right wing bias, even amongst those who self-indetify as right wing. Very few would say it has balanced reporting.
 
Last edited:

MrPogi

Moderator, , Webmaster of Cache Free TV
Staff member
#4
I find that Comedy Central's "Faux News" shows are more "fair and balanced" than Fox News. "The Colbert Report" and "The Daily Show" at least admit to being liberal-leaning opinion. Comedians John Stewart and Steven Colbert seem to have a better grasp of the facts than the US news networks or even our own elected officials. Love or hate them, these two men are not idiots.
 

dkreichen1968

Moderator
Staff member
#5
Rupert Murdoch, Australian-American, and owner of Fox (via News Corporation), recently tweeted this after the recent school shooting in Connecticut:

‘‘Terrible news today. When will politicians find courage to ban automatic weapons? As in Oz after similar tragedy’’
It has been quite clear to me that Fox is just the "right wing" of the CommuNazi establishment party in the U.S. (more Nazi than Communist). They want to disarm Americans as they have the Commonwealth nations so they can start killing their political opposition. The more things change the more they stay the same.
 

nbound-au

The Graveyard Shift
#6
It has been quite clear to me that Fox is just the "right wing" of the CommuNazi establishment party in the U.S. (more Nazi than Communist). They want to disarm Americans as they have the Commonwealth nations so they can start killing their political opposition. The more things change the more they stay the same.
Wait, what? I know Marijuana is legalised in Colorado now, but thats just a tad (and by a tad, I mean alot) insane!

I cant recall any political assassination attempts in the history of my nation. Nor any militant political parties...

I mean as a Commonwealth Nation, Canada, as another example must basically be a CommuNazi killing field... right?


-----------------------

The point of the Rupert Murdoch quotes, was the irony of the opinion of the man who runs it all, juxtaposed agaiinst Fox News itself (its right leaning stance is merely in its best business interests, of course). And if he really wanted to make a political statement and disarm Americans, then he could as massive media mogul. Yet of course, it was more hot air, then anything.
 

Fringe Reception

Super Moderator, Chief Content Editor
Staff member
#7
As a funny side note, Rupert Murdoch, Australian-American, and owner of Fox (via News Corporation), recently tweeted this after the recent school shooting in Connecticut:

‘‘Terrible news today. When will politicians find courage to ban automatic weapons? As in Oz after similar tragedy’’
IF - Murdoch actually tweeted that, he is an uninformed idiot. Automatic weapons have been banned in the USA for decades. If he thinks average citizens in the USA are armed like Rambo, he is nuts.

Semi-automatic weapons such as The Rifleman's Rifle and my 38 revolver are both weapons where the shooter makes THE decision to shoot a second, third or more times: an automatic weapon is a machine gun that sprays lead.

Here is my latest 'scary weapon' purchase. I love it ... what do you think?



Jim
 

nbound-au

The Graveyard Shift
#8
IF - Murdoch actually tweeted that, he is an uninformed idiot. Automatic weapons have been banned in the USA for decades. If he thinks average citizens in the USA are armed like Rambo, he is nuts.

Semi-automatic weapons such as The Rifleman's Rifle and my 38 revolver are both weapons where the shooter makes THE decision to shoot a second, third or more times: an automatic weapon is a machine gun that sprays lead.

Here is my latest 'scary weapon' purchase. I love it ... what do you think?



Jim
Im pretty sure he meant semi-automatic weapons; in all states except one, fully automatic weapons had also been banned since the 1930s. After Port Arthur, the remaining state banned automatic weapons, and nationwide we effectively banned semi automatic weapons (they are a few exceptions).

In all cases of gun ownership here the owner must say why they need it as part of the process, and self defence is not a valid reason. (It is of course legal to shoot someone in self defence if required, but it must not be the reason you own a gun). It is also of course not legal to have a concealed weapon on your person, even if you are legally entitled to own it.

I dont mind guns at all (I dont own one, I have no need), but I have done range shooting before, its not uncommon to go pig shooting (feral pig) in the general region I live in either. I also grew up in a farming area, of course most farmers have guns. My father was also a police officer (for whom the standard firearm is the Semi-Auto Glock pistol).

As some have might have guessed, I do think current US laws should be tightened. Noone, even amongst gun control advocates in the US are calling for complete bans. Australia's laws are amongst the most restrictive in comparable nations, yet you can still shoot for hunting, for sport, as a farmer, as part of your occupation, and so on. :)

I will point out there is no blanket ban on automatic weapons in the US, there are statewide bans, but with some restrictions, automatic weapons are legal in some areas. (The US Federal ban post 1986 only applies to newly manufactured weapons)

A quick primer on current Australian laws from Wikipedia:
State laws govern the possession and use of firearms in Australia. These laws were largely aligned under the 1996 National Agreement on Firearms. Anyone wishing to possess or use a firearm must have a Firearms Licence and, with some exceptions, be over the age of 18. Owners must have secure storage for their firearms.
Before someone can buy a firearm, he or she must obtain a Permit To Acquire. The first permit has a mandatory 28-day delay before it is first issued. In some states (e.g., Queensland, Victoria, and New South Wales), this is waived for second and subsequent firearms of the same class. For each firearm a "Genuine Reason" must be given, relating to pest control, hunting, target shooting, or collecting. Self-defence is not accepted as a reason for issuing a license, even though it may be legal under certain circumstances to use a legally held firearm for self-defence.[SUP][2][/SUP]
Each firearm in Australia must be registered to the owner by serial number. Some states allow an owner to store or borrow another person's registered firearm of the same category.
Firearms categories

Firearms in Australia are grouped into Categories determined by the National Firearm Agreement with different levels of control. The categories are:


  • Category B: Centrefire rifles (not semi-automatic), muzzleloading firearms made after 1 January 1901. Apart from a "Genuine Reason", a "Genuine Need" must be demonstrated, including why a Category A firearm would not be suitable.

  • Category C: Semi-automatic rimfire rifles holding 10 or fewer rounds and pump-action or semi-automatic shotguns holding 5 or fewer rounds. Category C firearms are strongly restricted: only primary producers, occupational shooters, collectors and some clay target shooters can own functional Category C firearms.

  • Category D: Semi-automatic centrefire rifles, pump-action or semi-automatic shotguns holding more than 5 rounds. Functional Category D firearms are restricted to government agencies and a few occupational shooters. Collectors may own deactivated Category D firearms.

  • Category H: Handguns including air pistols and deactivated handguns. (Albeit both SA and WA do not require deactivated handguns to be regarded as handguns after the deactivation process has taken place. This situation was the catalyst in QLD for the deactivation and diversion of thousands of handguns to the black-market - the loophole shut since 2001) This class is available to target shooters. To be eligible for a Category H firearm, a target shooter must serve a probationary period of six months using club handguns, and a minimum number of matches yearly to retain each category of handgun.
These categories - A,B,C,D and H were those determined by the NFA. The others listed here are determined by the states that have implement them at their own discretion.
Target shooters are limited to handguns of .38 or 9mm calibre or less and magazines may hold a maximum of 10 rounds. Participants in certain "approved" pistol competitions may acquire handguns up to .45", currently Single Action Shooting and Metallic Silhouette. IPSC shooting is approved for 9mm/.38/.357 handguns that meet the IPSC rules, but larger calibers are not approved for IPSC handgun shooting contests. Category H barrels must be at least 100mm (3.94") long for revolvers, and 120mm (4.72") for semi-automatic pistols unless the pistols are clearly ISSF target pistols: magazines are restricted to 10 rounds. Handguns held as part of a collection were exempted from these limits.
Certain Antique firearms can in some states be legally held without licences. In other states they are subject to the same requirements as modern firearms.
All single-shot muzzleloading firearms manufactured before 1 January 1901 are considered antique firearms. Four states require licences for antique percussion revolvers and cartridge repeating firearms, but in Queensland and Victoria a person may possess such a firearm without a licence, so long as the firearm is registered (percussion revolvers require a license in Victoria).
Australia has very tight restrictions on items which are far less controlled in comparable societies such as the UK. Air pistols, elsewhere unrestricted, are as difficult to get as centrefire and rimfire handguns, and low-powered airguns are as difficult as cartridge arms to license. Airsoft guns are banned in all states and non-firing replicas banned in most. Suppressors (or 'silencers') which are legal in the UK and New Zealand, are extremely restricted in Australia to a few government bodies.[SUP][3][/SUP]
You can also use some of the "lesser" weapons mentioned above without a license in controlled conditions, paintballing is a common sport, and you can also fire some types of weapons at shooting clubs that are owned by the club itself. Many of the "normal" weapon types can be also be used under the direct supervision of a license holder.
 
Last edited:

Fringe Reception

Super Moderator, Chief Content Editor
Staff member
#11
Au, you are spot-on!

But, my 'scary' assault rifle with a 'scope is a late 1970's Crosman .177 (caliber) BB gun.

Yes, it has a rifled bore and since it's a pump (not like my pump shotgun) using compressed air it needs to be pumped at least three times (up to ten times) before a second shot can be fired. A marksman's weapon and we don't have many squirrels here these days.

But ........... OH MY GOD! It looks so mean -- let's bans all of them! Where is Veep Joe Biteme when we need him?



Jim
 

nbound-au

The Graveyard Shift
#12
Hehe, but is anyone in the US, advocating the ban of BB weapons? Even under our (by your standards) draconian laws, it is unlikely to be banned (tiny possibility, just because it is pump, but I doubt that applies to air/BB rifles (I havent looked it up to confirm, but it certainly doesnt apply to paintball weapons which are in the same category) - and lets face it, the chance of fatality from all but the closest and well aimed of shots is negligible).
 
#13
I watch Fox News quite often, but there are times where I feel like it's just a bit too swayed in opinion on certain pieces. News is sometimes delivered with sarcasm or even opinion interjected instead of letting the viewer decide on how to interpret.
Well there really is no alternative. Opinion has an enormous impact on what one considers newsworthy in the first place. I would much rather have point of view out there in the open, to help me judge content. Any attempt to claim "objective journalism" is vain and deceptive, yet often succeeds in turning colorful, exciting news stories a sickly shade of gray.

Some of the younger newscasters on Fox daytime are a little tacky, but you have to forgive them their youth. It's easy to see through them. O'Reilly tries to steer a middle course, and he may be the most powerful man in U.S. news today. He may well be the reason we are stuck with another four years of Obama. He rarely has a good word for the man, yet he "abstained" from endorsing Romney. The best he could cough up: a vote for Obama is "dangerous." Very disappointing.

Hannity is disgusting. He's put back the conservative movement 20 years. He seems to think winning every argument -- no matter how he stacks the deck -- is a victory for his all-important ideology. People look at that and reasonably conclude conservatives are vicious troglodytes.

Greta Van Susteren is superb, but again, tries a little too hard to be noncomittal. I think every major news outlet should be required to endorse a candidate for president, assuming they cover the election.

You have to watch them all to get any kind of "fair and balanced" view, but if I had to choose one network, it'd be Fox.

Rick
 

AG99

DTVUSA Member
#15
Fox News - Is it news with opinion or just news?
It's neither. Just opinion.

Sorry, but I hate Fox. My aunt and uncle watch it all day, every day, and think it's the last word on everything. Fox has set back the educational level of America by decades.
 
Top